Luyện tập: Monitoring Electronic Communications

Some governments today seek to monitor the general public’s electronic communications (in the form of phone calls, texts and emails) saying that this reduces crime. Many people oppose this, however, saying that it erodes individual freedoms. Discuss the aspects of this debate, and give your own conclusion to the discussion.

Hiện nghĩa

Hiện vai trò câu

Highlight nội dung

Topic statementIt is admirableđáng ngưỡng mộ that governments seektìm kiếm to reduce criminalitysự phạm tội, and are prepared to use modern methods to achieve this. Supporting statementHowever, the arguments on both sides of this particular discussion (about monitoringgiám sát private electronic correspondencethư tín) are by no means straightforwarddễ dàng, đơn giản, as we shall see now.

Topic statementOn the one hand, those who favourủng hộ the interceptionsự chặn, nghe ngóng of private digitalkỹ thuật số messages and calls say that only by doing so can criminal messages be trackedlần dấu vết and the culpritsthủ phạm detainedgiam giữ. ExampleIndeed, there are many examples of violentbạo lực and sexualvề tình dục criminals (especially in the USA) who have been caught by these methods. Topic statementA further argument is that people with nothing to hide should have nothing to fear from being monitored, and that monitoring is an exercise in public safetysự an toàn cộng đồng, rather like CCTV or having police officers watch a large crowd for potentialtiềm năng trouble-makerskẻ gây rắc rối. Supporting statementSuch arguments are persuasivecó tính thuyết phục and are often used by media supporters of interceptionsự chặn, nghe ngóng and monitoring.

Topic statementBy contrast, though, other people point to the fundamentalcơ sở breachsự vi phạm of civil libertiesquyền tự do công dân which this policingkhống chế activity involves. ExampleAfter all, they say, we would not allow the police to search our homes entirelymột cách hoàn toàn at randomngẫu nhiên, or open our paper correspondence without reason, purelyđơn hthuần on the chance of finding something incriminatingbuộc tội. Topic statementAnother counter-argumentphản biện is the extremelyvô cùng small number of convictionssự kết tội that actually stembắt nguồn from these methods, compared to the overall population. Supporting statementIt appears to be true that the security services are most effective when respondinghồi đáp to specific information or observationssự quan sát, rather than ‘trawling’đánh lưới the entire population’s messages in the hope of detectingphát hiện ra tiny numbers of criminals.

OpinionOverall, I feel that the monitoring of the general population in this way is unjustifiedphi lý, in terms ofvề mặt personal freedomssự tự do and the evident lack of effectivenesssự hiệu quả of such methods. SummaryWe should urgethúc giục our police to focus on gaining information through informantsngười cung cấp tin tức and leads from concernedcó liên quan citizenscông dân, which would have a higher benefit in terms of conviction ratestỷ lệ kết án and consequenthệ quả public safety.

consequentcitizensconcernedinformantsin terms ofunjustified‘trawling’counter-argumentincriminatingpurelyat randomentirelypolicingbreachtrouble-makerspotentialpublic safetysexualdetainedculpritsdigitalfavourcriminalityadmirableseekmonitoringcorrespondencestraightforwardinterceptiontrackedviolentpersuasiveinterceptionfundamentalcivil libertiesextremelyconvictionsstemrespondingobservationsdetectingfreedomseffectivenessurgeconviction rates

It is đáng ngưỡng mộ that governments tìm kiếm to reduce sự phạm tội, and are prepared to use modern methods to achieve this. However, the arguments on both sides of this particular discussion (about giám sát private electronic thư tín) are by no means dễ dàng, đơn giản, as we shall see now.

On the one hand, those who ủng hộ the sự chặn, nghe ngóng of private kỹ thuật số messages and calls say that only by doing so can criminal messages be lần dấu vết and the thủ phạm giam giữ. Indeed, there are many examples of bạo lực and về tình dục criminals (especially in the USA) who have been caught by these methods. A further argument is that people with nothing to hide should have nothing to fear from being monitored, and that monitoring is an exercise in sự an toàn cộng đồng, rather like CCTV or having police officers watch a large crowd for tiềm năng kẻ gây rắc rối. Such arguments are có tính thuyết phục and are often used by media supporters of sự chặn, nghe ngóng and monitoring.

By contrast, though, other people point to the cơ sở sự vi phạm of quyền tự do công dân which this khống chế activity involves. After all, they say, we would not allow the police to search our homes một cách hoàn toàn ngẫu nhiên, or open our paper correspondence without reason, đơn hthuần on the chance of finding something buộc tội. Another phản biện is the vô cùng small number of sự kết tội that actually bắt nguồn from these methods, compared to the overall population. It appears to be true that the security services are most effective when hồi đáp to specific information or sự quan sát, rather than đánh lưới the entire population’s messages in the hope of phát hiện ra tiny numbers of criminals.

Overall, I feel that the monitoring of the general population in this way is phi lý, về mặt personal sự tự do and the evident lack of sự hiệu quả of such methods. We should thúc giục our police to focus on gaining information through người cung cấp tin tức and leads from có liên quan công dân, which would have a higher benefit in terms of tỷ lệ kết án and hệ quả public safety.